Date: October 5, 1903
Pages: 265-272

---

F. V. LENGNIK
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY AND V. A. NOSKOV

29.

F. V. LENGNIK — TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
AND V. A. NOSKOV *)*)

[October 5, 1903. Geneva.] **)

Matters stand as follows right now.

Yesterday there was a meeting of the entire former editorial board.³) Yuly [Yu. O. Martov] and his group were terribly nervous and provocative in mood, and refused in any way whatsoever to abandon his demand for co-optation of the entire former editorial board (the six).⁵) As a guarantee for the "minority of the editorial board" (Plekhanov and Lenin), he proposed: 1) Full freedom of speech in *Iskra* for Plekhanov and Lenin, and 2) To determine those instances when his group of four votes as a "group" against the "group" of Plekhanov and Lenin.⁶) On behalf of the editorial board, Plekhanov spoke mainly, maintaining throughout a calm, conciliatory tone. He argued to them that one cannot demand of the editorial board that it co-opt a majority that is manifestly in disagreement with it (and hostile, as I would add myself), and still less can one demand that the editorial board enjoy the right to express its views in *Iskra* only by the grace of this majority. But since it would be very desirable to put an end to the quarrel, which could, even contrary to the wishes of the group of four, owing to the militant-minded periphery***),⁷) result in a split, he proposes to organize the editorial board on the basis of complete equality—in other words, co-optation of two.⁸) On this subject there was discussion for a full three hours, and as a result no agreement was reached and could not have been reached, of course. The old man [V. I. Lenin], it should be noted moreover, did not even agree now to the co-optation of two, and only, yielding to pressure,⁹) did not protest against Plekhanov's proposal. Thus, there is now nothing more to say about reconciliation between the two sides. Before us now stands a collective declaration from the Martovist group requesting permission to form a literary group for the publication of pamphlets. I shall demand written justification from them of the necessity for this group and a detailed statute [of the proposed group], but it is already clear from the conversations that they want to be independent of the C.O.¹⁰) I am sending you the resolutions of the Congress* and the statute*), which on this score expresses itself somewhat indefinitely, but according to the sense of the statute, it seems to me that pamphlets are published under the control of the C.O.¹¹) Write quickly, what is your opinion on this matter.

I have also had conversations with the "practical workers" of the opposition. Lyuba [L. N. Radchenko], Kostya [R. S. Gal'bershtadt], and Erema [A. A. Schneerson]¹²) are leaving or have already left for Russia. They declared to me that the C.C. [should note] should take note that they consider themselves a "group" and, as such, they demand that the C.C. restore the "equilibrium violated by the Congress" through co-optation. Otherwise, they will [regard the C.C.] identify the C.C. with the majority that elected it and struggle against it and its point of view by all lawful means. I told them that [we] the C.C. cannot regard them as a group and can promise them nothing, but they again declared to me that they still consider themselves a group, etc. Thus, with them too, it appears, a struggle looms if we do not co-opt at least two of them,¹³) and do not go to war against the C.O. and the Soviet. This was demanded on their behalf by Trotsky. In the coming days Ignat [P. A. Krasikov] is leaving—you will undoubtedly need him now¹⁴)—and Konyaga (Gal'p[erin]), also standing on the firm point of view¹⁵). The latter will be useful to you for traveling around. I myself even vote for his co-optation. The old man also recommends him. Still others are leaving and want to leave.⁵

Write, for heaven's sake, because I'm like lost in a forest: I absolutely don't know how you are now disposed, and the matter, you see, admits of no delay now. One must secure the committees for ourselves and prepare immediately for real war. I see no other outcome now. Do you have money, people, willingness to struggle, etc., etc.? I literally know absolutely nothing about all this. It's finally outrageous.*) You see, I have to spend my time waiting for news from you, speaking to nearly everyone and about everything "on two counts." I don't even know if you are ready for war.

Kol.

P.S. The same petition as the Martovsists have officially declared also the unionists.¹⁶) [To this petition it seems to me one must answer the same way.] They [also declare] request [demand] permission to have a separate transport group (sic!). Following in the footsteps of the Martovsists, apparently the Borba-ists too will go.¹⁷)

Do you have nothing so that in No. 50 of *Iskra* (coming out on November 1, new style) there should be [first] announced the Congress and its most important results?¹⁸)

It would be good if the C.C. appeal were printed somewhat earlier in Russia. We will send a draft in the coming days. Answer quickly, whether you authorize me to sign this draft.

*) The addressees of F. V. Lengnik's letter have been precisely established from a letter by V. I. Lenin (see the following document), sent together with Lengnik's letter.

²) N. K. Krupskaya's notation gives the date of the letter and indicates the legal address to which it was directed in Kiev: "to Zhuk's clinic."

³) The dating of this and the following letter, made later by N. K. Krupskaya's hand, gives grounds to conclude that the decisive meeting of the entire composition of the former *Iskra* editorial board, with the participation of C.C. member F. V. Lengnik, took place on October 3. But this indirect indication conflicts with the direct indications of Lenin in the citation from "*Steps Forward, Two Steps Back*" (Collected Works, vol. V, p. 430) cited on p. 265, Martov in his letter to the C.O. editorial board of October 9 (below, p. 304), and Gal'perin in his letter to Berlin of October 5 (below, p. 290). All three of these latter sources categorically place the said meeting on October 4. This apparently is the accurate date of the meeting.

⁴) "With his group"—i.e., within the editorial "group of four": Martov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Potresov.

⁵) The author of the letter is not entirely precise in this place. The word in brackets "six" denotes the full composition of the former editorial board. The matter concerns co-optation to the "pair" of editors (Lenin and Plekhanov) elected by the Congress of the remaining "four" to the full former "six."

*) Apparently F. V. Lengnik initially intended to end the letter here and placed his signature "Kol" here. The entire preceding part of the letter is written in pencil. The subsequent part of the letter is written in ink. Ed.

⁶) These conditions repeat the "basis for agreement" which was put forward by the Martovsists already in preliminary negotiations through Dana (see above, pp. 258–260 and 263) and was rejected by Lenin at that time. The hopelessness of negotiations on this "basis" led Lenin from the very beginning to take a skeptical view of the October 4 meeting and to transfer both the initiative of the meeting and the role of principal speaker of the majority at it to Plekhanov (see below note 8).

⁷) "Militant-minded periphery"—these are the "practical workers" of the opposition, some of whom were present at the Congress, participated in the Congress "brawl," and were mobilized by the opposition "staff" to Russia to win over the local party committees. Lengnik speaks below in this very letter about three representatives of this oppositional periphery.

⁸) "Co-optation of two" representatives of the opposition into the *Iskra* editorial board—this was already an extreme condition for agreement upon which the editorial board settled in the course of preliminary negotiations through Dana (pp. 259 and 261). At the same time, Plekhanov at the October 4 meeting put forward this proposal as wholly desirable, whereas Lenin went along with it only "yielding to pressure" (from Plekhanov and Lengnik). It is interesting to trace in the course of the negotiations between the editorial board and C.O., C.C. with Martov and his group the evolution of Plekhanov's position and Lenin's position, beginning with the negotiations in London (through Noskov the day after the Congress) and ending with this October 4 meeting. After the failure of the London negotiations, according to Lenin's testimony, there was "what one might call no opening" with Plekhanov. Then in his conception the sense of the disagreement with Martov was formulated as "political party struggle." Plekhanov was then convinced that Martov "would wish to cement this [his Congress. Ed.] coalition [with opportunists. Ed.], would direct all efforts to prove our [Lenin's. Ed.] error with Plekhanov at the Congress, would become a genuine leader of the opportunist wing of our party." ("A Step Forward, Two Steps Back," Collected Works, vol. V, p. 427.) Lenin then "put on the airs of a ... 'center' or 'bog' and tried to appeal with persuasion" (his personal meeting and conversation in Geneva with Martov in late August and his letter to Potresov of September 13—see above pp. 213 and 215–217). In the negotiations through Dana in the twenties of September, Plekhanov already takes a more conciliatory position, agreeing, according to Dana, to co-optation of the "four" on the condition of specially stipulated instances of parity voting by "groups" (2 votes each). Lenin, however, decisively objects to the full co-optation of all four, agreeing only to parity co-optation of two. On October 4, Plekhanov, restrained by Lenin's decisive firmness, still fully agrees to co-optation of two, whereas Lenin goes along with this only "yielding to pressure" (from Plekhanov and Lengnik). Thus, in proportion to the opposition's persistence and as the struggle against them became fiercer, Plekhanov, fearing a split, made concessions to the opposition, whereas Lenin, increasingly clarifying for himself the sense of the struggle with the opposition, became ever firmer, more decisive, more inflexible.

⁹) "Pressure" on Lenin in the question of co-optation of two representatives of the minority into the C.O. editorial board at the October 4 meeting apparently came from Plekhanov and Lengnik.

¹⁰) F. V. Lengnik was not mistaken in his conclusion "from the conversations" and from the entire behavior of the opposition that they, seeking permission to form a literary group, "want to be independent of the C.O." But in fact, they wanted more. Their basic objectives in this respect were formulated very clearly and precisely in point VII (in Martov's version) of resolution 17, worked out in the middle of September (see above, pp. 249). Here the fundamental aim of the organization of a special literary group of the "minority" was set forth very clearly—this aim, to which were subordinated and from which flowed all the immediate tasks of this group, was the creation of an ideological and organizational guiding center of the minority within the party, in opposition to the central institutions of the party (C.O. and C.C.) and for struggle against them.

¹¹) The resolution on party literature adopted by the Congress, among other tasks, set "the creation of extensive pamphlet literature, which would set itself the task of systematic popularization of the party program and Congress resolutions on questions of tactics." The resolution concluded with the following decision: "The Congress entrusts the central institutions of the party with taking all necessary measures for the implementation of these decisions." ("Protocols" of the II Congress, 1924 ed., p. 338.) As for the statute, F. V. Lengnik had in mind § 7, which stated: "The Editorial Board of the Central Organ is responsible for the ideological leadership of the party." (Ibid., p. 8.)

¹²) A. A. Schneerson (Erema)—a worker, social-democrat, Iskra-ist, from the II Congress of the R.S.-D.R.P. a Menshevik, a prominent practical party worker; in September 1902 he was part of the group of propagandists of the Petersburg Committee; conducted correspondence with the *Iskra* editorial board; in early September 1902 he presented Lenin with a draft "Organization of the SPB Revolutionary Party" with a request for criticism; in response to his draft Lenin at the same time wrote his well-known "Letter to a Comrade on Our Organizational Tasks" (see Collected Works, vol. IV, pp. 159–174); in October of the same year Sh. moved to Kiev, where he was soon arrested; after the II Congress of the party, while in emigration abroad (in Geneva), joined the opposition and joined the boycott of the C.C. and C.O. being conducted by it; participated in the Geneva conference of 17 Mensheviks (between September 13 and 20), which worked out the above-cited (pp. 246–249) resolution—platform on the boycott of the central institutions of the party; in October, among other prominent practical members of the opposition, set out for Russia to win over the local committees to the side of the "minority"; subsequently took active part in party work on the ground (Kiev, Odessa, Petersburg), being known in party circles as a "die-hard" Menshevik.

¹³) The demand for co-optation into the C.C. of 2 representatives of the opposition from among the "practical workers" invariably formed part of the opposition's minimum program. Martov in a letter to Axelrod of August 31 writes: "Simultaneously with Kurtz [F. V. Lengnik] we shall conduct negotiations about the reception into the C.C. of two from among our candidates, whom we will be able to present from among approximately 4 people. This condition is directly necessary, because otherwise our practical workers await the most shameful persecution." ("Letters of G. V. Axelrod and Yu. O. Martov," p. 88.) Axelrod on September 24 writes to Martov and Potresov: "We are entrusted with the publication of pamphlets, etc. [apparently, in the event that co-optation into the C.O. editorial board does not take place. Ed.]. In such a case we are deprived of formal, legal influence. Therefore the demand for co-optation of new members to the C.C. must be a sine qua non condition [an ultimatum. Ed.] for agreement. Otherwise an impression will result that for us the whole matter amounted to placing ourselves personally" (ibid., p. 92). Finally, initially in the known resolution 17, the demand for co-optation into the C.C. was linked to the general plan of opposition struggle as follows: "III. Working on the ground, members of the opposition refuse to occupy official posts in the C.C. until such time as its composition undergoes the indicated above changes, which would guarantee its ability to work and capacity for development of this institution into a real leader of the party. [A minimal guarantee in this respect would be the reception into the C.C. of two persons from the opposition.]" (Above, the text of this resolution, p. 248.)

¹⁴) XuT F. V. Lengnik apparently has in mind the possibility of co-optation of P. A. Krasikov into the C.C., of which V. I. Lenin speaks directly in his letter printed below.

¹⁵) L. E. Gal'perin ("Konyaga") came to Geneva already after the Congress. At first he could not immediately sort out the essence of the disagreement that arose at the Congress (see below his letters, pp. 284–295). Then, after becoming acquainted with the facts and after observing the behavior of the minority, he took the side of the majority. As a firm Iskra-ist, being drawn into work at *Iskra*, he was delegated by the editorial board as the second representative to the Soviet. F. V. Lengnik and V. I. Lenin, as one can judge from their letters, were so confident in Gal'perin as a firm Iskra-ist that they recommended his co-optation into the C.C. The subsequent evolution of Gal'perin, when he became a member of the C.C., showed that Lengnik and Lenin were both mistaken in him: to a considerable degree it was precisely he who took the initiative in the conciliatory turn of the C.C. already in early 1904 in the direction of the opposition.

¹⁶) "Unionists"—members of the former group of the "Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad," representatives of which, Martyanov and Akimov (Makhovets), left the second party Congress. The "Union," among other foreign S.D. groups, was dissolved at the second Congress.

¹⁷) "Borba-ists"—members of the former group "Borba," also dispersed at the second Congress—Danevich-Gurevich, Ryazanov, Nevzorov-Steklov.

¹⁸) No. 50 of *Iskra* came out on October 28, however, without notice of the Congress. It, as well as the most important resolutions, were first printed only in No. 53 of *Iskra*, which came out on December 8, old style, after the editorial board passed into the hands of the opposition (after Lenin's withdrawal from the editorial board and after the ultimatum of the C.C. on the conditions of agreement presented to the opposition, Plekhanov on November 26 co-opted the former editorial "group of four").

---

30.

V. I. LENIN — TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY AND
V. A. NOSKOV.

To Kler and Boris from the old man.

[October 5, 1903. Geneva.]*)

Dear friends! Kurd**) [F. V. Lengnik] writes you about yesterday's meeting.²) There is absolutely, absolutely no hope of peace any longer. You cannot realize even a tenth of the outrages to which the Martovsists*** have descended here, poisoning all of abroad with gossip, cutting off connections, money, literary materials, etc. War is declared, and they (Lyuba [L. N. Radchenko], Kostya [R. S. Gal'bershtadt], Erema [A. A. Schneerson]) are already leaving to wage war in Russia ****). Prepare yourselves for the most legal, but desperate struggle. One must by all means occupy positions in all committees without exception with your people. One must pay particular attention to Khar'kov, Ekaterinoslav, and Rostov. Is it really true that the Kiev Committee passed a resolution for the minority? Is that possible? Why don't we know about this beforehand?

I would very much and very much advise you to co-opt Konyaga [L. E. Gal'perin] and Ignat [P. A. Krasikov]. The former you will soon see [apparently yourselves] and will get to know. As for the latter, I will say: [that] in war he is, by God, useful and necessary; [that] he should obey Kler*****)

[G. M. Krzhizhanovsky]—he will be entirely in order; [that] one can remove him from unsuitable functions; [that] much idle gossip circulates about him; there is no reason to fear [that] he will co-opt Lord knows whom, because Kurtz will stay here for a while and we will watch over him. I repeat: I strongly advise you to take Ignat, but of course this is entirely your affair and I have taken from Ignat a solemn promise to obey fully his superiors (having confessed to him that he should be prepared also for non-co-optation). For heaven's sake, set up a proper bureau so that we have letters every week from you. I would urge still more earnestly the transfer of Krug [G. M. Krzhizhanovsky] to an illegal position: it is not worth perishing cheaply. Let him travel around everywhere in 2–3 months, and then come here to take Kurtz's place. This step really is necessary. Have you seen Lebedev [S. I. Gusev]? Here are also Ruben [B. M. Knunyants].

Gurvich [F. I. Dan] and Khinchuk³)—Martovsists.

Write back regarding the Soviet: one must formally appoint immediately one more member from the C.C. and transfer to him your vote to Kurtz. Please, do not delay.

1) The significance of N. K. Krupskaya's notation is the same as on the preceding letter by F. V. Lengnik (see note 2 to it, p. 269).

2) A meeting of the former *Iskra* editorial board in its full composition with the participation of C.C. member F. V. Lengnik on the question of agreement. More detailed information about the course of this meeting is provided in the preceding letter by F. V. Lengnik (pp. 267–268).

3) L. M. Khinchuk (b. 1869)—social-democrat, Iskra-ist, from the II Congress of the R.S.-D.R.P. an active central worker of Menshevik organizations; in 1889, as a student of Bern University, under the influence of G. V. Plekhanov and the publications of the Group "Emancipation of Labor," defined himself as an S.D.; in 1890–1891 he worked in Tula, where he organized two S.D. worker circles; in 1892 he was arrested; after 2½ years of imprisonment he was exiled for 6 years to the Yakutsk region; upon return from exile in 1900 he worked on organizing the labor movement in the Crimea, where the party organization was Iskra-ist; after the collapse of the Crimean organization in connection with the May Day demonstration, Kh. moved to Tula and joined the local S.D. organization; in 1901 he moved to Moscow, where together with Vainstein and Theodorovich he participated in the creation of the Moscow Committee and from where he conducted correspondence with *Iskra* and sent correspondence to *Iskra*; in May 1902 he was arrested; after 1½ years of imprisonment he was exiled to Yenisei province, from where by 1903 he fled and emigrated abroad; after the II Congress of the party, while abroad, joined the "minority" and apparently participated in the Geneva